GRIMM Audio LS1c & SB1 DSP Speaker Review

[Pearljam5000]

This, we stopped stocking them purely because of the cost/value proposition, Grimm admitted they were targeting the ‘oligarch’ market which isn’t wrong and certainly not today unusual .
Keith

It's too cheap for oligarchs
Speakers that cost $100K or more are more suitable for Them

 

[Mort]

LS1C is better for home use. Wide directivity gives better spaciousness, tonal richness and as Sean Olive puts it, wide directivity speakers disappear better in rooms. This is coming from a 8361 owner.

I'm not sure I agree. I think it depends a lot on source material. Acoustic sounds better with some reverb. But many modern studio recordings shine with more intimacy and precision.

I own every model of 'the ones' and have owned every model from Philharmonic Audio, a very wide directivity shop. I like both.

 

[thewas]

I'm not sure I agree. I think it depends a lot on source material. Acoustic sounds better with some reverb.

Also listening distance, room acoustics and personal preference, in the end it is usually a compromise of narrow but more precise vs wide and less precise imaging and seemingly the personal preferences vary there.

 

[Purité Audio]

It's too cheap for oligarchs
Speakers that cost $100K or more are more suitable for Them

Well yes but once you have added the £17k Grimm streamer…
Keith

 

[Arindal]

And therefore the difference in tweeter edge difference will be smaller than with a straight edge.

If the straight edge would be very close to the tweeter, yes, that is having a similar effect of spreading diffraction issues, but it should also be taken into account under which angle the partial edge diffractions are most noticeable and leading to cancellation effects.

this seems a special form of sound then, as typical waves "see" all kinds of edges, especially the sharp and big ones.

If they are radiated in more of less unattenuated form into the direction of the obstacle with the latter being big enough to cause a diffraction, surely. My point was that the bridge is causing a significant level of diffraction for the waves going to the sides, in parallel to the main baffle, already, so they are presumably not going to see these edges being further away with sufficient level to cause annoying edge diffraction.

And yes a surround or a basket ring of a woofer is an obstacle for treble waves, posing a certain risk of causing diffractions. But the situation with conventional coaxial designs using the midrange cone as a waveguide, is a bit more sensitive to such diffractions as the waves are originating from the inner of the cone, basically following the shape of the midrange cone. That is not the case here.

a super small baffle (but the Geithains are neither)

The bridge is in fact a very small baffle as seen from the tweeter, except for its width which explains the edge diffraction in a narrow band from the sides.

Geithain speaks about "cardioid" up to 300 Hz and no mentioning of the mid being cardioid n their page. So it its not even clear what is "intended".

With ´intended´ I meant directivity control to achieve a more or less constant directivity index without a significant decrease in the band the midrange has kicked in (500..1.2K Hz).

My guess would be they are relating to specific ´cardioid´ for those models which were available with cardioid or omnidirectional bass in different versions. But I cannot speak for the manufacturer as I am not affiliated in any way nor do I have any sympathy for all their design choices. Found the cardioids with smaller woofers (particularly 8") as well as the very big midwoofers in 2-way designs and their tweeter arrays rather questionable.

What is in your opinion the cause of such "FR issues" under specific angles? If it is not a result of diffraction, what else is there?

Can be anything, reflections from midrange/tweeter hitting the woofer diaphragm, interference effects between drivers, cone breakup for the midrange, imperfections regarding midrange cardioid behavior.

Wide directivity gives better spaciousness, tonal richness and as Sean Olive puts it, wide directivity speakers disappear better in rooms.

Not sure about that. If wide horizontal dispersion patterns comes with increased level of discrete reflections from the side walls, wider directivity is more likely to result in ´diffuse spaciousness´, tonal imbalance, compromising localization stability and increasing the risk of the speakers themselves being accidentally localizable.

To make wide directivity speakers disappear better, a certain amount of attenuation or diffusion of such reflections is necessary which is more likely to be found in a studio control room rather than a living room.

If your 8361s are projecting a ´compact´ staging, I would prescribe this rather to a lack of diffuse energy >2K in the room causing the phantom sources to appear detached from the ambience/reverb. With a balanced in-room reverb, they can sound as wide as a wide dispersion speaker. Speaking of Genelec, I found the 8341 to be the ideal compromise between these two opposing concepts.

 

[Blockader]

If your 8361s are projecting a ´compact´ staging, I would prescribe this rather to a lack of diffuse energy >2K in the room causing the phantom sources to appear detached from the ambience/reverb. With a balanced in-room reverb, they can sound as wide as a wide dispersion speaker.

In a room like you described, wide speakers will sound even wider : ) I chose the 8361s because the music I listen to benefits more from precise imaging than from a spacious soundstage. Most people listen to vocal music, soft classical music, soft jazz... I think for such use cases wide dispersion speakers is a much better choice.

 

[Pearljam5000]

In a room like you described, wide speakers will sound even wider : ) I chose the 8361s because the music I listen to benefits more from precise imaging than from a spacious soundstage. Most people listen to vocal music, soft classical music, soft jazz... I think for such use cases wide dispersion speakers is a much better choice.

Which one is better for rock, metal and EDM?

 

[Blockader]

Which one is better for rock, metal and EDM?

To me when it comes to rock or metal, it really depends on the level of distortion. Speakers do not have the clarity of headphones, so music with heavily distorted guitars doesn't appeal to me as much when the playback clarity is low. Only In well-dampened rooms I can really enjoy bands like Meshuggah. That said, this is highly subjective... just my personal experience. Some people might actually prefer listening to metal in more echoey environments, where the distortion can sound even more dramatic and intense. The enjoyment factor also can vary from one recording to another.

Far-field listening can enhance the sense of spaciousness of speakers. When I want more precision, I sit closer to the speakers. When I want to experience more spaciousness, I move further back. I usually listen my speakers from 4-5 meters far though.

 

[Matt_Holland]

This thread is a good example of why I am hesitant to send speakers either to Amir or Erin, because 100 random people who don't really know what they're talking about pop out of the woodworks to analyse the results as if they're acoustical engineers (while they're obviously not).

I would encourage you to consider that the benefits would outweigh the negatives.

Having third party published data only adds to your overall policy of absolutely transparency of information and when combined with your consistent high quality communication via these forums, will positively effect your reputation I believe.

 

[Davey]

This thread is a good example of why I am hesitant to send speakers either to Amir or Erin, because 100 random people who don't really know what they're talking about pop out of the woodworks to analyse the results as if they're acoustical engineers (while they're obviously not).

It's indeed a double-edged sword. And just a further point.......neither Amir or Erin are acoustical engineers either. Nor speaker designers.

 

[Pearljam5000]

It's indeed a double-edged sword. And just a further point.......neither Amir or Erin are acoustical engineers either. Nor speaker designers.

Sometimes amateurs are more knowledgeable than professionals.
Obviously not always

 

[Arindal]

Most people listen to vocal music, soft classical music, soft jazz... I think for such use cases wide dispersion speakers is a much better choice.

I listen to almost all genres of music (have to, kind of), a lot of classical included. From personal experience I would say that wide dispersion speakers like the Grimms in a reverberant room or one with discrete side wall reflections is one of the most annoying things. Particularly choir music, sacred music, opera, it is all unbearable with unstable localization IMHO. With a properly treated room like a studio control room, this is basically a non-issue.

Fully understand your choice regarding localization stability, but my point was that a better compromise between localization and ambience as well as depth-of-field is possible with those speakers or a slightly smaller model.

Which one is better for rock, metal and EDM?

Would say I would prefer a low level of indirect sound in the room with all three genres as the impulsiveness and direct dynamics are a key point of the particular sound in my understanding. So pretty similar to complex classical music with more focus of not having a rather dull and ´lame´ reverb.

Only In well-dampened rooms I can really enjoy bands like Meshuggah. That said, this is highly subjective

Did you try high-/constant directivity speakers such as the big GGNTKT? I found them to be pretty satisfying with harder genres of rock (at least classic metal and prog metal).

 

[gnarly]

Well, here we have a case where we, as tinkerers without any formal training in the subject in question, have to explain to a university professor in the same subject what nonsense he is making. You can do it, but you can also leave it alone. Otherwise we like to refer to authorities and put their statements through the blender. No judgement, that's everyday human behaviour.

I take it you meant me, given the sequence of who you quoted and then how you replied.

I never said the paper had nonsense in it.
I said the paper "has some excellent and accurate info. But the way the info is presented, seems to be about inflated techno-selling."

And you presume too much. I do have considerable training in crossovers and processing,
....and most importantly, more than enough experience to question those with greater formal training & knowledge, when their assertions are matters of opinions on their applied techniques.
If you had the requisite knowledge in the subject matter, you would realize what I posted is accurate. Later Heinrich ....i'm done with this...

 

[Heinrich]

Sometimes amateurs are more knowledgeable than professionals.
Obviously not always

I had already mentioned two oddities four times, makes 8. Yes, it's actually still about the LS1. That the destructive interference from the (particularly complex) crossover points upwards, to where a listener is more likely to be than lying on the carpet. (asking for a software update)
And that we see ripples in a frequency range where they are not expected from the design. ("Spherical surface function" approximation in NFS?)

Neither point was taken up. That speaks for the quality of the discussion, in all modesty. But then take a look at the firework display of vague technical terms and weighty assessments plucked out of the blue

I wouldn't present my work to them again - as a DIY guy, not even for the fun of it. Once done, not again - I have no spinorama, and if I had, it wasn't perfect.

I take it you meant me, ...

Nope, I asked you to back up on "dissing" claims suspicions (off topic) about Gaithain's.

 

[caught gesture]

It's too cheap for oligarchs
Speakers that cost $100K or more are more suitable for Them

For a billionaire, $100K is 0.01% of their worth. Not even a rounding error!

 

[MattHooper]

This thread is a good example of why I am hesitant to send speakers either to Amir or Erin, because 100 random people who don't really know what they're talking about pop out of the woodworks to analyse the results as if they're acoustical engineers (while they're obviously not).

This thread does smack of “some people are never satisfied”

 

[gnarly]

Nope, I asked you to back up on "dissing" claims suspicions (off topic) about Gaithain's.

Uh, I've never even remotely commented in the Gaithain discussion. Didn't even know the dang speaker existed....

 

[Mart68]

This thread does smack of “some people are never satisfied”

Sort of. But its pretty typical that if you give a finished product to a bunch of engineers they will always go straight to its problems, how it can be improved, and how they could have done it more cheaply and simply. I think there's value in that discussion even if not every point raised is correct. It's part of how progress gets made.

 

[Pearljam5000]

LS1be costs the same as LS1C
Hard to choose

 

[MattHooper]

Sort of. But its pretty typical that if you give a finished product to a bunch of engineers they will always go straight to its problems, how it can be improved, and how they could have done it more cheaply and simply. I think there's value in that discussion even if not every point raised is correct. It's part of how progress gets made.

Oh absolutely, I agree!